Comments

Just saw the hit. Initially I felt it was dirty, upon replay I think it is a clean hit.

To determine if a hit is north-south, I believe we have to look at the skates of both players: they should be facing in opposite direction (give or take a handful of degrees). In this case, Torres made the hit going north-south.

There was the rule 48 video linked via YouTube in an earlier post’s comment section. Here is the [url=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1kDdODSZf0]link[/url]. In this video, at roughly the 3:00 mark, there is a hit which is similar to the Torres’ hit deemed a legal hit.

In both cases, the player was reaching behind him to control the puck, and hit in the head from roughly the same direction his skates were pointed in. A player must keep his head up and know what’s going on in the direction he’s traveling.

Regarding puck possession, like Kronwall’s hit on Havlat, if the puck is being played around your feet, whether or not you touched it with your stick, it should be assumed that you have possession of the puck. My personal opinion, only.

Regarding Torres’ history, unless a play is deemed illegal on its own merits, past history should not affect the evaluation of the play. If the play is deemed illegal, then past history should absolutely be considered when imposing a punishment.

Posted by
VooX
from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 04/18/11 at 10:49 AM ET

I can’t believe what I’m reading here. Seabrook never touched the puck! It’s a clean hit if he is possession of the puck, but he never touches it. It’s like pancaking the quarterback before the ball is snapped…Seabrook is not in play. Forget about the headshot aspect, forget about rule 48, a player could have been seriously injured because he did not have the puck, that’s what the league is looking at. Don’t care if it’s in the area, because that opens up a can of worms, you have to have the puck to be hit. End of story. 5 game suspension.

Disagreement is bound to happen. How one expresses their opinion is usually what draws strong reaction, positive or negative.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/18/11 at 10:11 AM ET

Careful, J.J., let’s not throw around the word “respected” too liberally when talking about me.

Posted by wolverine on 04/18/11 at 10:19 AM ET

I have to disagree. If the puck is in your feet, essentially underneath you, I consider you to be in possession, regardless of whether you touched the puck with your stick. Who else would have possession?

Otherwise, what’s to stop players from coasting with the puck, untouched, between their skates every time they get a pass and a defender is near? It’s like interference penalty entrapment. A defender doesn’t have a lot of time to make decisions, judgements have to be quick. A defender can’t watch a puck between a players feet to audit when/if the puck is touched, they must (rightfully) assume he has and play their man while they can.

It is up to the defender to legally play the body (no dangerous hits), but has to make some basic assumptions about possession to effectively defend and not be too passive.

Posted by
VooX
from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 04/18/11 at 01:22 PM ET

[quotPosted by wolverine on 04/18/11 at 10:19 AM ET

I have to disagree. If the puck is in your feet, essentially underneath you, I consider you to be in possession, regardless of whether you touched the puck with your stick. Who else would have possession?

Otherwise, what’s to stop players from coasting with the puck, untouched, between their skates every time they get a pass and a defender is near? It’s like interference penalty entrapment. A defender doesn’t have a lot of time to make decisions, judgements have to be quick. A defender can’t watch a puck between a players feet to audit when/if the puck is touched, they must (rightfully) assume he has and play their man while they can.

It is up to the defender to legally play the body (no dangerous hits), but has to make some basic assumptions about possession to effectively defend and not be too passive.

Posted by VooX from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 04/18/11 at 11:22 AM Ee]]

VooX,
Enjoy your commentary, but have to disagree with you on this one. Remember Kronwall on Havlat 2 years ago in the playoff, puck between Havlat’s feet, and Kronwall blows him out of the water? Fine line, but that’s a good hit. It was in his “possession” because he missed the pass, but it was in his feet. Kronwall didn’t have time to figure out if Havlat had touched it yet. Here’s where the difference is with Seabrook. He was reaching back, looking back, and the puck was still a foot from his stick when Torres steamrolled him. It wasn’t in his feet. How can a guy defend himself on that play? Can’t envision a player “coasting with the puck” between his skates without ever touching it…don’t ever see that happening. Plus, the big difference is it wasn’t in Seabrooks skates. Just my take.

You’re assuming tht someone is always in possession of the puck. Is a defenseman therefore in possession when skating after an iced puck? Should anyone therefore be able to hit the guy closest to the puck?

Otherwise, what’s to stop players from coasting with the puck, untouched, between their skates every time they get a pass and a defender is near?

You don’t see the difference?

some of us are players here past in present

I don’t mind your inability to spell like an adult, but can you please try to make a coherent thought?

He has posted over and over and over about Torres should be suspended for the rest of his life, he never will understand the game of hockey but will ride the coat tails of Wings fan claiming he does.
You should all wake up and smell the coffee here, your reasoning here will go in one of his ears and out the other, quickly I might add as there is nothing between those ears to process that information.
QUIT riding the coat tails of your fellow fans JJ.

Posted by PuckHound61 from Speckville USA on 04/18/11 at 11:30 AM ET

What reasoning have you brought? You jumped in both feet with screaming about how the people who disagree with you don’t know hockey and hate your game. Then, you did the ugliest Canadian thing possible by bringing geography into it. You’re an embarrassment. People disagree with you.

It’s not about the pansification of the game. If Torres is playing hockey the way you’re supposed to and makes that hit on Seabrook, then there’s no problem. The fact that Torres doesn’t go for the puck makes it interference. The fact that Torres takes advantage of a vulnerable player makes it a goon move.

He’s made his career doing that. If getting Raffi Torres out of the next ten games pansifies the NHL, then I say go ahead. If that drives off the “real” and “knowledgeable” hockey fans like you, then all the better.

You’re assuming tht someone is always in possession of the puck. Is a defenseman therefore in possession when skating after an iced puck? Should anyone therefore be able to hit the guy closest to the puck?

If he is reaching to back to play a puck approaching him, then, yes, within his reasonable reach he has possession.

If two players are fighting for puck but neither has clean possession, they BOTH have possession. A player should be able to bodycheck (legally) either one of them to win the puck.

There are limits. Obviously, the puck is not always possessed, as you mentioned. Similarly possession isn’t always as clean cut as simply touching the puck.

Posted by
VooX
from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 04/18/11 at 04:21 PM ET

J.J. is a great person and contributer. We do not always agree, but find ways to state out positions with humour and without midslinging.

Posted by
VooX
from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 04/18/11 at 04:23 PM ET